It's funny, because it's the best name they've ever come up with. Marshal is terrible - it has two possible meanings, to Europeans, it's a general, so locks in military rank and all that implies, to Americans, it's a law-enforcement officer, totally inappropriate. Most other alternatives are military ranks, or otherwise imply rank (like Captain, which can also refer to the civilian commander of of ship) - too narrow in what they imply, and in-use, today, so bringing with them modern anachronisms. Warlord both has a strong fantasy sound to it, and has no implication of military rank. A Warlord can lead merely by example, by formal authority such as military rank, by acclaim, by threat, etc... And, yes, a Warlord could be an aweful person like a tribal strongman or rapacious orc chieftain - just as a Sorcerer or Wizard is often a villain in genre (or RL, where 'Sorcerers' are charlatans who exploit the superstitious).
The main problem I had with the name is that implies (in addition to the things you already mentioned) a certain degree of achievement or rank. In 4e, where you are assumed to be already heroic at 1st level, that may be doable, but in 5e where 1st level doesn't imply that level of experience, it just seems odd to call you a "warLord". I mean, you're more of a warStudent for a few levels at least.
I started a topic about it over on the WotC forum before, or soon after, the first playtest came out, and the alternative name that seemed to have the most support was "captain." It doesn't totally fix the issue, but it's a bit less of a problem.
Not healing. Healing can stand a fallen ally. Temps are a very appropriate buff for the Warlord, and he had a lot of things to grant them, but they're not healing. They don't even fit the name, which implies recovery. If Inspiring Leader were hp-recovery, it'd only make thing worse, since it'd be giving the Warlord's fairly unique schtick to anyone who wanted it.
Are you saying that you (and others) consider actual non-temporary healing to be an essential part of the warlord?
Because that changes the issue somewhat. I haven't been addressing that topic, because it usually turns into nothing but an argument, and it's really just a matter of playstyle preference that people try to argue for logically. I'm not interested in participating in that.
So if actual healing is considered an essential part of why people want a warlord (rather than simply healing-like functions in addition to their other roles), then I don't really have anything to say about the issue. I assumed that was not the case, and it was feel and general function rather than a level of detail like "must be actual regaining of hit points."
CS dice are just too few,
That's a fair point. If warlord has to be able to do those things all the time, then you can't get that with a Battle Master fighter.
and these effects to minor. You can do one of these a couple of times between rests, and their impact is minor. Commander's Strike, Wolf Pack Tactics, and Furious Smash did those three things in 4e, and they were at wills, and they didn't obviate the need for the hundreds of other maneuvers the class had to choose from.
I just don't see those hundreds of other maneuvers doing a lot of substantially different effects from one another.
Unless they made some sort of "martial spells" for 5e, there is no way to represent that many discrete effects, without condensing them down. While I'm sure there are probably a couple more maneuvers they could make, I don't think there is a lot more room within 5e design to expand beyond that.
Would you think a Rogue with expertise in arcana who could learn 4 cantrips and take a Ritual Caster feat would be an adequate replacement for the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock? That's how far your Battlemaster is from being a Warlord.
No, but I probably would consider it an adequate replacement for assassin. (The Magic Initiate, and perhaps Ritual Caster feat is actually how I represent assassins that dabble in arcane magic like in 3e.)
That is another issue. 5e obviates some potential maneuvers by removing a lot of depth from combat in the name of speeding it up. That just means any maneuvers or resources modeling tactics/strategy/etc need to be yet more abstract.
No disagreement here.
Battlemaster-style manuevers are hopelessly hobbled by the need too keep the class balanced in spite Fighter's very potent, high-DPR, easily-breakable, multiple attacks. A Warlord class wouldn't be a DPR monster, and probably wouldn't make multiple attacks (at least, not himself, every round - possibly he'd have some options that allow them sometimes).
No style, sub-class, feat or background takes away from a class the way you'd need to take away from the fighter to make room for the kinds of abilities needed. The fighter's core, before sub-class, is so focused on high single-target DPR, that it's not given any meaningful features to use in Interaction or Exploration, for instance - no other class is so invested in a single function as to require such extreme measures to balance.
I understand what you're saying about needing room for more extensive abilities (and I'll address that below).
As far as taking away things from the fighter, is that something people consider an essential part of the warlord? They
can't be almost as good at personal combat as (the other) fighters?
Actually, it's the objection to the warlord that's emotional. The reaction to the name. The reaction to non-magical hp restoration. The lingering, irrational, spite still directed at 4e.
The name is just aesthetics. If the class was enjoyable for me I'd change the name. I don't consider actual healing an essential part of the warlord. I may have underestimated how big of deal that was for warlord supporters. I'm not a warlord-hater, so edition preferences aren't relevant to my argument.
It was a Thief 'sub class' from the beginning, and it's abilities have never been that different from the fighter. It's like the Illlusionist, that way.
Now, if you wanted a 4e Assassin, with Shrouds, no, the Rogue sub-class wouldn't cut it. But you'd be talking a de-facto caster, or at last magic-using class of somekind.
It's really, really not. The assassin started as a Thief sub-class, has been nothing more than a Kit at times, and has always just done some of what a thief does, plus disguise (which thieves/rogues have been able to do for a while) and death attack. The 5e Assassin does most of what a thief does, plus death attack. It works because they are very similar.
Didn't 1e assassin's have what amounted to martial weapon proficiency? (I might be misremembering that.) That would be a pretty big distinction. I do disagree that it was probably the least distinctive of the "subclasses" in 1e. The 3e version expanded it in interesting ways, and I never got to see the actual specifics of the 4e version, but it seemed interesting.
Just to be nitpicky, but "subclass" meant something different in AD&D anyway. Both rangers and paladins were "subclasses." It was term used, very, very, poorly. 2e cleaned up the concept when it made the class categories, and expressed it that the fighter, thief, cleric, and wizard were the most basic/standard representation of the warrior, rogue, priest, and mage categories, with the other classes being other representatives of those categories.
The same is not true of the Warlord, which has always been a full class, and which does a great many things the fighter has never been able to, and has never had the uber-DPR of the 2e figther that is the template for the 5e fighter.
The 'coherence' of 5e is a non-issue, balance was never a goal, and they DM imposes as much balance or coherence as he feels his campaign needs.
Design space for new martial classes is wide open. Consider the existing all-martial classes: there are none. Now, consider the few exclusively martial sub-classes: The Barbarian (high DPR), the Champion (high DPR), the Battlemaster (high DPR), the Thief (high DPR, skills) and the Assassin (high DPR, skills).
So, what's left: everything but high DPR and traditional 'thief' skills (stealth, thieves tools, etc). That is a tremendous amount of design space, including the Leader, Defender, and Controller formal roles from 4e.
The Warlord was not a high DPR class (it could goose other class's DPR, but it wasn't, one, itself), didn't really impinge on the Thief's traditional skill bailiwick, and was a Leader (secondary defender or, maybe controller, if you squinted).
There is not only room for the Warlord, but an expansive Void where the 4e Fighter and Warlord should be.
I'll try to explain what I mean about 5e design space, design philosophy, rules coherence, etc.
The 5e designers have a philosophy and some general principles they are following involving everything they have done with 5e design. It has evolved over time. They have told us some of it in articles leading up to 5e. They have given us other juicy tidbits in UA, such as the concept of "ribbons" in the Waternborne article, or the various design assumptions mentioned in the one on designing your own classes and subclasses.
Other bits have to be extracted from what they have and have not done with the game, the choices they have made, and the things they have hinted at without saying.
If a satisfying warlord requires:
a) Actual hit point regaining healing
b) Being substantially less skilled in personal combat than the "pure" fighters (Champion, Battle Master)
c) A broad selection of special abilities
d) A level of distinction from current 5e offerings similar to the level of distinction between 4e fighter and 5e fighter
It isn't going to fit in 5e's design philosophy, principles, and space, without a major revision, on par with the 3.5e Tome of Battle. I can go into more detail on the why if someone really is interested. (Healing is actually the easiest one for them to do.)
So is that what people are asking for? A Tome of Battle level of expansion to accommodate a warlord?
I mean, I'm not going to argue against that. I'd even take a look at it and consider using it if it were only a couple tweaks away from usable for me.
But what I am saying is that it really would require that level of expansion to give all those elements to the warlord. So people asking for the warlord, conceptualized in that manner, are asking for something as expansive as a psionics handbook.
That's probably going to be a hard sell for WotC.
